M/S. Arun Developers Thr. Its Partner ... vs Lata Murlidhar Pawar Thru Ca Vinod M ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12239 Bom

Bombay High Court

M/S. Arun Developers Thr. Its Partner ... vs Lata Murlidhar Pawar Thru Ca Vinod M ... on 5 December, 2023

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

                                                                                      9-wp9403-2023.doc


                       VRJ
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO.9403 OF 2023

VAIBHAV
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
                       Arun Developers Through Its Partner &
JADHAV
Date: 2023.12.05
18:13:30 +0530         Anr.                                           ... Petitioners
                                  V/s.
                       Lata Murlidhar Pawar Through Her
                       Constituted Attorney Vinod Murlidhar
                       Pawar                                          ... Respondent


                       Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saket
                       Mone, Mr. Abhishek Salian i/by Vidhi Partners for the
                       petitioners.
                       Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.
                       Pratap Patil for the respondent.



                                                       CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                       DATED    : DECEMBER 5, 2023
                       P.C.:

1. Arguable questions are raise. Hence, Rule.

2. Prima facie it appears that the plaintiff was party to Special Civil Suit No.1849 of 2008. The Trial Court framed Issue No.7 which answers said suit in affirmative. The said issue is "Does defendant No.1 prove that it has lawfully executed sale deed dated 29/12/2007 ?". The defendant No.1 referred in the said issue is the petitioner.

3. The Trial Court partly allowed the temporary injunction

9-wp9403-2023.doc

application; however, the Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Prima facie judgment in Special Civil Suit No.1849 of 2008 is side stepped on the ground that at this stage Court cannot be precluded from making observations in relation to sale deed dated 29th December 2007.

4. Prima facie once the plaintiff was party to the said suit, findings recorded on issues would bind the plaintiff. Therefore, prima facie the relief based on invalidity of sale deed dated 29 th December 2007 could not have been accepted for grant of injunction. Hence, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of interim relief.

5. During pendency of the present writ petition, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b.1). Prayer clause (b.1) reads as under:

"(b.1) That pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 26th April 2016."

6. Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent.

7. It is made clear that pendency of present petition shall not preclude the Trial Court from deciding the suit.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)